Thursday, January 30, 2014
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
PRESS RELEASE: “take up his cross, and follow me” - Matthew 16:24, 1599 Geneva Bible
Corvallis,
MT – Local
veterans have established a new group in the Bitter Root valley called the
Military Brethren. As the title suggests this new group is made up of followers
of Jesus Christ who have served in the military. If you are a believer in Jesus
Christ and a veteran then you have a place in this group. Our motto is “give
back with love” and our goal is to help fellow veterans, their families and
local the community. Through prayer and work we plan on helping local veterans
and their families. We want veterans and Christians to know they are not alone
and the Christian community is all around them and willing to help.
It is time for local Christians to stand up and show
solidarity with Christians here and around the world. The Military Brethren asks
all Christians in the Bitter Root valley to march for Jesus Christ on Holy
Saturday, April 19, 2014.
The march will start at 6:41 a.m. at the Angler’s
Roost Bridge south of Hamilton. We will proceed north along the U.S. Highway 93
pedestrian path to Lolo.
Walk 3 miles, 20 miles or the entire 40 miles to
Lolo. We are asking all of the Bitter Root Valley Churches to operate
checkpoints along the route.
The first planning meeting will be held at the Daly
Leach Community Room, Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 7:00 pm.
You don’t need to be a veteran to participate in the
planning process for the march.
For more information go to http://pushbackwithprayer.blogspot.com/
Please pray for those planning this great event.
Sunday, January 26, 2014
Military Brethren: Stand To for 27 January, 2014
Veterans Push Back with Prayer
0700 at BJ’s Restaurant
Hamilton, Montana
1. Opening - Round the Table
Individual Prayers
2. Morning Psalm: 62
3. Breakfast Reading: Isaiah
6:1-8
4. Breakfast is served
5. Breakfast Discussion Topic:
What did you learn at church yesterday?
52 Weeks to Preparedness
Week
4 of 52: Communications
Holy Saturday
March for Jesus Christ April 19, 2014
Press
Release for approval
6. Closing - Round the Table
Individual Prayers
7 Councils: The Third Council of Constantinople
by Tim Challies
January
26, 2014
I am in the midst of a series of articles on the seven ecumenical councils of
the early church. These councils commenced with the First Council of Nicaea in
325 and concluded with the Second Council of Nicaea in 787. Between these two
events were five more, each of which attempted to understand and
establish a unified Christian theology.
In this series we are taking a brief look at each of the seven councils. For each one we are considering the setting and purpose, the major characters, the nature of the conflict, and then the results and lasting significance. We continue today with the sixth council: the Third Council of Constantinople.
The primary conflict in the council was regarding the two doctrines of monoenergism and monothelitism. Monoenergism arose not long after the Second Council of Constantinople as another attempt to reconcile the churches of the East and West. It was the belief that, though Christ may have had two distinct natures, there was but one energy operative in his person: the divine energy. Leo Davis describes the position like this: “Whatever was done by the Incarnate Word was done by Him as Creator and God, and that therefore all the things that were said of Him either as God or in a human way were the action of the divinity of the Word.”
Not long after the emergence of monoenergism, the discussion turned more toward discussions about Christ’s will in place of his energy. From this came monothelitism, the belief that Christ had only one will, namely his divine will, “for at no time did His rationally quickened flesh, separately and of its own impulse … exercise its natural activity, but it exercised that activity at the time and in the manner and measure in which the Word of God willed it.”
One particularly bizarre event occurred at this Council. In one of the sessions after Macarius’ was deposed, one of his followers, a priest named Polychronius, claimed that he could raise a man from the dead and in this way prove monothelitism orthodox. A dead man was brought in, a profession of faith was laid on his chest, and Polychronius whispered in his ear. Not surprisingly, nothing happened, so Polychronius was quickly defrocked.
In this series we are taking a brief look at each of the seven councils. For each one we are considering the setting and purpose, the major characters, the nature of the conflict, and then the results and lasting significance. We continue today with the sixth council: the Third Council of Constantinople.
Setting & Purpose
The Third Council of Constantinople was convened by Emperor Constantine IV in an attempt to settle further differences between the Eastern and Western church in the way they understood the nature of Christ’s will and power. The council began on Nov 7, 680 in the Trullus, a great domed room in the imperial palace at Constantinople. Only 43 bishops were present, marking this as the smallest of the seven ecumenical councils.Major Characters & Conflict
Constantine IV opened the council and presided over the first 11 of the 18 sessions (which would go on for 10 months). But unlike the councils before and after it, the Third Council of Constantinople did not have one or two men who dominated the proceedings.The primary conflict in the council was regarding the two doctrines of monoenergism and monothelitism. Monoenergism arose not long after the Second Council of Constantinople as another attempt to reconcile the churches of the East and West. It was the belief that, though Christ may have had two distinct natures, there was but one energy operative in his person: the divine energy. Leo Davis describes the position like this: “Whatever was done by the Incarnate Word was done by Him as Creator and God, and that therefore all the things that were said of Him either as God or in a human way were the action of the divinity of the Word.”
Not long after the emergence of monoenergism, the discussion turned more toward discussions about Christ’s will in place of his energy. From this came monothelitism, the belief that Christ had only one will, namely his divine will, “for at no time did His rationally quickened flesh, separately and of its own impulse … exercise its natural activity, but it exercised that activity at the time and in the manner and measure in which the Word of God willed it.”
The Proceedings
During the council, two patriarchs were accused of advocating the doctrines of monoenergism and monothelitism: George of Constantinople and Macarius of Antioch. In an attempt to bolster their belief that they were holding to the position of previous councils, Macarius presented extracts from the Fathers showing evidence for his positions. These documents were soon called into question as having been corrupted or twisted out of context. Alternate copies were found, demonstrating that this was exactly what had happened. In the face of this evidence, George changed his mind and embraced the orthodox position. Macarius, though, held his ground and was tried before the council for falsifying the writings of the Fathers. He was found guilty and deposed from his office.One particularly bizarre event occurred at this Council. In one of the sessions after Macarius’ was deposed, one of his followers, a priest named Polychronius, claimed that he could raise a man from the dead and in this way prove monothelitism orthodox. A dead man was brought in, a profession of faith was laid on his chest, and Polychronius whispered in his ear. Not surprisingly, nothing happened, so Polychronius was quickly defrocked.
The Results
The Third Council of Constantinople reaffirmed the decisions of the first five councils and the creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople I. The bishops also prepared and signed A Definition of Faith that explicitly condemned monoenergism and monothelitism as heretical, saying,Lasting Significance
Once again, the church had clarified the nature of Christ as fully God and fully man, now extending that definition to include his nature, power, and will. And once again, the church had preserved orthodox, Trinitarian doctrine in the face of new assaults. For the time being there would be peace between the church of the East and West.Westminster Shorter Catechism in Modern English - Question #12
Q. 12. What special act of providence did God exercise toward man in the state in which he was created?
A. When God had created man, he entered into a covenant of life with him, on condition of perfect obedience, forbidding him to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil on penalty of death.[a]
A. When God had created man, he entered into a covenant of life with him, on condition of perfect obedience, forbidding him to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil on penalty of death.[a]
[a] Genesis 2:16-17
Wycliffe Bible (WYC)
16 And God commanded to him and said, Eat thou of each tree of paradise; (And God commanded to him and said, Thou can eat of every tree in the garden;)
17 forsooth eat thou not of the tree of knowing of good and of evil; for in whatever day thou shalt eat thereof, thou shalt die by death. (but thou shalt not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for on the day that thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die.)
James 2:10
Wycliffe Bible (WYC)
10 And whoever keepeth all the law, but offendeth in one [Forsooth whoever shall keep all the law, soothly offend in one], he is made guilty of all.
Comment on Q. 12
A covenant is a solemn agreement. We call the agreement God made with Adam a covenant of life because if it had been kept by man a higher form of life from which he could never fall would have resulted. The threat of death was conditional and implied the promise of 'life' if he did not disobey, not just continued existence but immortal glory. The other special tree in the garden, the tree of life, was a symbol of this. By the law of nature written on his heart at creation, man was bound to give perfect obedience to God. This special covenant would show if man was willing to take the word of his Maker or to please himself.
The word 'covenant' is not mentioned in Scripture in connection with Adam (unless Hosea 6:7 is an exception) but the elements of a covenant (parties, promise, condition, penalty) are present and an original creation covenant is implied in Genesis 6:18. The parallel with the covenant of grace and Christ's position of headship as 'the last Adam' (1 Cor 15:45 cf. Rom 5:12 ff) requires the covenant arrangement with Adam.
The word 'covenant' is not mentioned in Scripture in connection with Adam (unless Hosea 6:7 is an exception) but the elements of a covenant (parties, promise, condition, penalty) are present and an original creation covenant is implied in Genesis 6:18. The parallel with the covenant of grace and Christ's position of headship as 'the last Adam' (1 Cor 15:45 cf. Rom 5:12 ff) requires the covenant arrangement with Adam.
Sunday, January 19, 2014
7 Councils: The Second Council of Constantinople
Sun, Jan. 19, 2014 Posted: 11:08 AM
I am in the midst of a series of articles on the seven ecumenical councils of the early church. These councils commenced with the First Council of Nicaea in 325 and concluded with the Second Council of Nicaea in 787. Between these two events were five more, each of which attempted to understand and establish a unified Christian theology.
In this series we are taking a brief look at each of the seven councils. For each one we are considering the setting and purpose, the major characters, the nature of the conflict, and then the results and lasting significance. We continue today with the fifth council: the Second Council of Constantinople.
In an attempt to do this, Justinian issued an edict in 543 condemning three things: the person and writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrusa’s writings against Cyril, and the letter of Ibas of Edessa to Maris the Persian. These were condemned because they were understood to support Nestorius and his view of Christ’s human and divine natures being distinct rather than united (see Council of Chalcedon).
Because the Monophysites were opposed to Nestorianism, Justinian’s edict condemning these three items (which would come to be called the Three Chapters) was readily accepted in the east, where the Monophysite view was predominant. The edict was not so easily accepted in the west, however, because it appeared to cast doubt on the actions of the Council of Chalcedon.
Pope Vigilius of Rome relocated to Constantinople in 547 to escape the Ostrogoth invasion of Italy. While he initially resisted Justinian’s edict and encouraged other bishops in the west to do the same, over the next year, and after convening a number of bishops who also had resisted the edict, he came to accept Justinian’s Three Chapters, with reservations, in a document called the Judicatum. This document affirmed his confidence in the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon; nevertheless, the pope’s agreement to the Three Chapters came with much opposition from the west.
To prevent further rifts in the church, the Emperor encouraged Vigilius to visibly retract the Judicatum and call for a council that would examine the reasoning of the east and, hopefully, lead to universal agreement.
As plans were coming together for a council, Justinian and Vigilius could not agree on who should participate or where it should be held. Vigilius did not want it to be held in the east and also wanted more western bishops invited. This is the reason for his hesitation about it and why, during the council, he repeatedly refused to appear up until the third week of assembly.
In the end, the council accepted the decisions of the first four ecclesiastical councils. On May 24, Vigilius showed up with a new document, his Constitutum I, in which he refused to condemn the Three Chapters wholesale because he said each of the men had died while in communion with the church, and that the letter of Ibas had already been declared orthodox at Chalcedon. He did, however, outrightly condemn some particular propositions of Theodore of Mopsuestia and of Nestorius. The pope himself and several of the attending bishops and clerics signed the Constitutum I, but the emperor rejected its validity, saying that the council had already condemned the Three Chapters.
The Emperor responded by presenting evidence of pope Vigilius’ previous decision to condemn the Three Chapters (expressed in his Judicatum) and his agreement to attend the council (expressed in his personal correspondences with Justinian). This demonstrated Vigilius’ lack of integrity and his unwillingness to work with the council to come to a consensus, which in turn resulted in a decision by the council to break communion with him, without at the same time breaking communion with the Holy See of Rome.
In the eighth and final session, the council laid out their sentence, which summarized their condemnation of the Three Chapters. As regards the letter of Ibas, they concluded that the Council of Chalcedon must have reviewed and approved a different letter, supposedly also by Ibas, since they said the one they had revisited at this council was clearly in opposition to the doctrine of Chalcedon and could not have been approved by them.
Lasting Significance
Schaff says, “Pelagius I, who succeeded [Vigilius] in the See of Rome, likewise confirmed the Acts of the Fifth Synod. The council however was not received in all parts of the West, although it had obtained the approval of the Pope. It was bitterly opposed in the whole of the north of Italy, in England, France, and Spain, and also in Africa and Asia.” However, by 700, “the Second Council of Constantinople was received all the world over as the Fifth Ecumenical Council; and was fully recognized as such by the Sixth Council in 680”—the Third Council of Constantinople.
In this series we are taking a brief look at each of the seven councils. For each one we are considering the setting and purpose, the major characters, the nature of the conflict, and then the results and lasting significance. We continue today with the fifth council: the Second Council of Constantinople.
Setting & Purpose
Like the First Council of Constantinople, the Second Council of Constantinople was held in modern day Istanbul, Turkey. The council met from May 5 to June 2, 553 and was convened by Emperor Justinian I in an attempt to reconcile those who sided with the decisions of Chalcedon a hundred years prior and the Monophysites who had not.Major Characters
Somewhere between 151 and 168 bishops attended the council, most of them from the eastern half of the church. Phillip Schaff says “Among those present were the Patriarchs, Eutychius of Constantinople, who presided, Apollinaris of Alexandria, Domninus of Antioch, three bishops as representatives of the Patriarch Eustochius of Jerusalem, and 145 other metropolitans and bishops, of whom many came also in the place of absent colleagues.” The two major players were Emperor Justinian I and Pope Vigilius while Eutychius, patriarch of Constantinople, presided.The Proceedings
Justinian I was a pious emperor who, in the interest of preserving his empire, saw the necessity of preserving the integrity of the Christian faith. This demanded at least attempting to heal the schism that had resulted between the Monophysites and those who submitted to the decisions of Chalcedon a hundred years prior.In an attempt to do this, Justinian issued an edict in 543 condemning three things: the person and writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrusa’s writings against Cyril, and the letter of Ibas of Edessa to Maris the Persian. These were condemned because they were understood to support Nestorius and his view of Christ’s human and divine natures being distinct rather than united (see Council of Chalcedon).
Because the Monophysites were opposed to Nestorianism, Justinian’s edict condemning these three items (which would come to be called the Three Chapters) was readily accepted in the east, where the Monophysite view was predominant. The edict was not so easily accepted in the west, however, because it appeared to cast doubt on the actions of the Council of Chalcedon.
Pope Vigilius of Rome relocated to Constantinople in 547 to escape the Ostrogoth invasion of Italy. While he initially resisted Justinian’s edict and encouraged other bishops in the west to do the same, over the next year, and after convening a number of bishops who also had resisted the edict, he came to accept Justinian’s Three Chapters, with reservations, in a document called the Judicatum. This document affirmed his confidence in the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon; nevertheless, the pope’s agreement to the Three Chapters came with much opposition from the west.
To prevent further rifts in the church, the Emperor encouraged Vigilius to visibly retract the Judicatum and call for a council that would examine the reasoning of the east and, hopefully, lead to universal agreement.
As plans were coming together for a council, Justinian and Vigilius could not agree on who should participate or where it should be held. Vigilius did not want it to be held in the east and also wanted more western bishops invited. This is the reason for his hesitation about it and why, during the council, he repeatedly refused to appear up until the third week of assembly.
In the end, the council accepted the decisions of the first four ecclesiastical councils. On May 24, Vigilius showed up with a new document, his Constitutum I, in which he refused to condemn the Three Chapters wholesale because he said each of the men had died while in communion with the church, and that the letter of Ibas had already been declared orthodox at Chalcedon. He did, however, outrightly condemn some particular propositions of Theodore of Mopsuestia and of Nestorius. The pope himself and several of the attending bishops and clerics signed the Constitutum I, but the emperor rejected its validity, saying that the council had already condemned the Three Chapters.
The Emperor responded by presenting evidence of pope Vigilius’ previous decision to condemn the Three Chapters (expressed in his Judicatum) and his agreement to attend the council (expressed in his personal correspondences with Justinian). This demonstrated Vigilius’ lack of integrity and his unwillingness to work with the council to come to a consensus, which in turn resulted in a decision by the council to break communion with him, without at the same time breaking communion with the Holy See of Rome.
In the eighth and final session, the council laid out their sentence, which summarized their condemnation of the Three Chapters. As regards the letter of Ibas, they concluded that the Council of Chalcedon must have reviewed and approved a different letter, supposedly also by Ibas, since they said the one they had revisited at this council was clearly in opposition to the doctrine of Chalcedon and could not have been approved by them.
The Result
The council issued a sentence on the Three Chapters, which can be found here while also issuing fourteen anathemas which served to lay out the rule of faith regarding Christ’s nature that had been established and agreed upon in previous councils. A further fifteen anathemas concerning the doctrines of Origen have come to be associated with this council, but there is debate over whether they were part of the official proceedings and whether they are actually attributable to Origen. The council also named and condemned the teachings of all the heretics to date.Lasting Significance
Schaff says, “Pelagius I, who succeeded [Vigilius] in the See of Rome, likewise confirmed the Acts of the Fifth Synod. The council however was not received in all parts of the West, although it had obtained the approval of the Pope. It was bitterly opposed in the whole of the north of Italy, in England, France, and Spain, and also in Africa and Asia.” However, by 700, “the Second Council of Constantinople was received all the world over as the Fifth Ecumenical Council; and was fully recognized as such by the Sixth Council in 680”—the Third Council of Constantinople.
Tim Challies
7 Councils: The Council of Chalcedon
Sun, Jan. 12, 2014 Posted: 11:32 PM
by Tim Challies
I am in the midst of a series of articles on the seven ecumenical councils of the early church. These councils commenced with the First Council of Nicaea in 325 and concluded with the Second Council of Nicaea in 787. Between these two events were five more, each of which attempted to understand and establish a unified Christian theology.
In this series we are taking a brief look at each of the seven councils. For each one we are considering the setting and purpose, the major characters, the nature of the conflict, and then the results and lasting significance. We continue today with the the fourth council, the Council of Chalcedon.
When Marcian, an orthodox Christian, became emperor, he wished to convene another council in order to resolve the turmoil that the Second Council of Ephesus had stirred up. That council met from October 8 to November 1, 451, in Chalcedon, now a district of modern-day Istanbul. It was held here rather than in Italy because of the pressing threat to the Roman Empire from Attila and his Huns.
The Council of Chalcedon was forced to clean up the mess caused by the Second Council of Ephesus and they did this by reaffirming the creeds of previous ecumenical councils and other expressions of faith which had been deemed orthodox (such as Cyril’s second letter to Nestorius and a tome by Pope Leo which summarized the Christology of the West). They also put on trial before the council Dioscorus and any other bishops who had supported the decisions of the Second Council of Ephesus.
Finally, they developed a creed that would restate orthodoxy for a new generation and clarify it against the alternate views which had been battled through up to this point (Arianism, Nestorianism, and now Eutychianism).
I am in the midst of a series of articles on the seven ecumenical councils of the early church. These councils commenced with the First Council of Nicaea in 325 and concluded with the Second Council of Nicaea in 787. Between these two events were five more, each of which attempted to understand and establish a unified Christian theology.
In this series we are taking a brief look at each of the seven councils. For each one we are considering the setting and purpose, the major characters, the nature of the conflict, and then the results and lasting significance. We continue today with the the fourth council, the Council of Chalcedon.
Setting & Purpose
In 449, a Second Council of Ephesus was convened because of the excommunication of a monk named Eutyches, who taught that Christ, after his incarnation, had only one nature. The council itself devolved into drama when those who supported Eutychus, led by Dioscorus and supported by the Roman Emperor Theodosius II, unilaterally and forcefully asserted their doctrine over against those who held the orthodox view that Christ has two natures—one fully human and one fully divine—which exist in hypostasis in one person. When news of the council reached Rome, Pope Leo immediately termed it Latrocinium (a “robber council”).When Marcian, an orthodox Christian, became emperor, he wished to convene another council in order to resolve the turmoil that the Second Council of Ephesus had stirred up. That council met from October 8 to November 1, 451, in Chalcedon, now a district of modern-day Istanbul. It was held here rather than in Italy because of the pressing threat to the Roman Empire from Attila and his Huns.
Major Characters & Conflict
Of the 350 to 500 bishops present, two stand out as the major characters: Eutyches and Dioscorus. Eutyches was an aged and influential monk from Constantinople. Because of his unorthodox teachings about Christ he had already been condemned as a heretic in 448 by a local synod in Constantinople. Dioscorus became Bishop of Alexandria after Cyril died in 444. When Eutyches was initially excommunicated, Dioscorus came to his defense. Eventually he would preside over the Second Council of Ephesus where he strong-armed the assembly to restore Eutyches and depose those who had excommunicated him.The Conflict
Eutyches’ doctrine appeared to be an overcorrection to the heresy of Nestorius (see The Council of Ephesus). Leo Davis says, “Since he was a confused and muddled thinker, his doctrine was far from clear and consistent.” In essence, though, he taught that Christ had two natures before the Incarnation—one human and one divine—and that in the Incarnation these two natures became one. “He hated the idea of two natures in Christ after the Incarnation because he understood nature to mean concrete existence. To affirm two natures was for him to affirm two concrete existences, two hypostases, two persons in Christ.”The Council of Chalcedon was forced to clean up the mess caused by the Second Council of Ephesus and they did this by reaffirming the creeds of previous ecumenical councils and other expressions of faith which had been deemed orthodox (such as Cyril’s second letter to Nestorius and a tome by Pope Leo which summarized the Christology of the West). They also put on trial before the council Dioscorus and any other bishops who had supported the decisions of the Second Council of Ephesus.
Finally, they developed a creed that would restate orthodoxy for a new generation and clarify it against the alternate views which had been battled through up to this point (Arianism, Nestorianism, and now Eutychianism).
The Result
Dioscorus was tried, found guilty of abusing his priestly authority (most specifically at the Second Council of Ephesus) and defrocked. The council then prepared and affirmed a confession which denied a single nature of Christ and reaffirmed that he has two natures—a human and a divine—which coexist in hypostasis in his one person:Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us.
Lasting Significance
While the council did have some lasting significance, Leo Davis points out that, “As with the Creed of Nicaea, one hundred and twenty-five years before, the definition of Chalcedon was not the end but the intensification of controversy.” The intensification of this controversy would lead to further disagreements and taking of sides so that by 484 Felix III, Pope of Rome at that time, would decree Acacius, the archbishop of Constantinople, “by a sentence pronounced from heaven … ejected from the priestly office.” Acacius would respond by erasing Felix’s name from the church’s diptych, thus symbolizing the breaking of communion with him. Within thirty-three years, because of the decisions of these councils, there would be a full schism between the churches of the East and the West.7 Councils: The Council of Ephesus
Sun, Jan. 05, 2014 Posted: 12:21 PM
by Tim Challies
I am in the midst of a series of articles on the seven ecumenical councils of the early church. These councils commenced with the First Council of Nicaea in 325 and concluded with the Second Council of Nicaea in 787. Between these two events were five more, each of which attempted to understand and establish a unified Christian theology.
In this series we are taking a brief look at each of the seven councils. For each one we are considering the setting and purpose, the major characters, the nature of the conflict, and then the results and lasting significance. We continue today with the Council of Ephesus.
This council came at time of conflict over authority within the church. The First Council of Constantinople had established the bishop of Constantinople as second in authority following Rome, whose bishop carried the title of Pope and who claimed his authority from the line of Peter. Alexandria and Antioch were also powerful bishoprics and their schools of Christology historically came from different positions. Leo Davis explains: “Just as all philosophers are said to be basically either Aristotelian or Platonist, so, roughly speaking, all theologians are in Christology either Antiochene, beginning with the Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels and attempting to explain how this man is also God, or Alexandrian, beginning with the Word of John’s Prologue and attempting to understand the implications of the Logos taking flesh.” This council would further expose the rift between the two schools of Christology.
When news of Nestorius’ teachings reached Cyril, he responded privately to Nestorius, but also publicly, and this resulted in several letters back and forth in what became a growing public debate. Some have suggested that Cyril was partly motivated not only by theology, but by the political implications of an Antiochene theologian now holding the chair of the second highest bishopric. In addition to these letters, Cyril wrote to Pope Celestine, who convened a synod in Rome and soon called for Nestorius to recant his teaching. Cyril also convened a synod in Alexandria, which came to the same decision. He wrote to Nestorius to deliver the news of both Rome’s and Alexandria’s synods and to call on him to recant. By this time Nestorius had already appealed to Theodosius II for a council and the emperor had agreed. At the council, Cyril would be the major defender of calling Mary Theotokos and the statement that Christ is the perfect unity of God and man.
Because the Pope did not attend the council, Cyril was made president. The council was scheduled to begin on June 7th but had to be postponed when a major contingency of bishops from the East (most notably John, the bishop of Antioch) had not arrived. On the 22nd, Cyril finally decided to convene the council without them. Despite repeated requests for his attendance, Nestorius refused to attend because of Cyril’s role as president. The council met and voted to affirm Cyril’s second letter to Nestorius (in which he had outlined his Christology in full) as in agreement with the Nicene Creed and to denounce Nestorius’ Christology (outlined in his response to Cyril’s second letter) as blasphemous and opposed to the faith of Nicaea.
When John and the Eastern bishops finally arrived, they were outraged to find that the council had already convened and come to a decision. They convened their own council immediately, condemning and excommunicating Cyril and others. Not surprisingly, this led to confusion, conflict and intrigue. Ultimately, though, the decision of Cyril’s council was approved by both Rome and Constantinople.
I am in the midst of a series of articles on the seven ecumenical councils of the early church. These councils commenced with the First Council of Nicaea in 325 and concluded with the Second Council of Nicaea in 787. Between these two events were five more, each of which attempted to understand and establish a unified Christian theology.
In this series we are taking a brief look at each of the seven councils. For each one we are considering the setting and purpose, the major characters, the nature of the conflict, and then the results and lasting significance. We continue today with the Council of Ephesus.
Setting & Purpose
The Council of Ephesus was convened in 431 by Theodosius II, emperor of the eastern half of the Roman empire, and he did so at the request of Nestorius. Nestorius’ teaching about the nature of Christ was generating a great deal of controversy in the church, and he requested a council in the hopes of being able to prove his orthodoxy and silence his detractors. While Theodosius did not attend, he sent the head of his imperial palace guard, Count Candidian, to represent him. The council met in Ephesus, near present day Selcuk in Turkey with between 200 and 250 bishops in attendance.This council came at time of conflict over authority within the church. The First Council of Constantinople had established the bishop of Constantinople as second in authority following Rome, whose bishop carried the title of Pope and who claimed his authority from the line of Peter. Alexandria and Antioch were also powerful bishoprics and their schools of Christology historically came from different positions. Leo Davis explains: “Just as all philosophers are said to be basically either Aristotelian or Platonist, so, roughly speaking, all theologians are in Christology either Antiochene, beginning with the Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels and attempting to explain how this man is also God, or Alexandrian, beginning with the Word of John’s Prologue and attempting to understand the implications of the Logos taking flesh.” This council would further expose the rift between the two schools of Christology.
Major Characters
Though he would not actually be present, the dominant personality at the Council of Ephesus was Nestorius who was originally from Antioch in Syria. Nestorious was a gifted speaker who had been appointed by Theodosius II as Archbishop of Constantinople. The second major character was Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria. The two men would represent the two sides in a conflict with profound implications to the Christian faith.The Conflict
Once in Constantinople, Nestorius found himself caught between two factions: one faction insisted on calling Mary Theotokos (“God-bearer”) while the other rejected the title because they held that an eternal being could not be born. (Theotokos was an ancient title for Mary that had been in use since the 3rd century, used by such men as Origen, Athanasius, and Gregory of Nazianzus.) In an attempt to mediate the dispute, Nestorius suggested calling Mary Christotokos (“Christ-bearer”). He wanted to affirm that Christ had a fully human nature rather than a nature mixed with his Deity. He also wanted to affirm the full reality of his Deity, which Nestorius believed could not involve change or suffering. By calling Mary Christotokos, Nestorius was suggesting that she gave birth to Christ, which was the prosopon (lit. in Greek “face” or “mask”) of the Son—the single perceived object of the Son, but internally consisting of two distinct natures, one human and the other divine.When news of Nestorius’ teachings reached Cyril, he responded privately to Nestorius, but also publicly, and this resulted in several letters back and forth in what became a growing public debate. Some have suggested that Cyril was partly motivated not only by theology, but by the political implications of an Antiochene theologian now holding the chair of the second highest bishopric. In addition to these letters, Cyril wrote to Pope Celestine, who convened a synod in Rome and soon called for Nestorius to recant his teaching. Cyril also convened a synod in Alexandria, which came to the same decision. He wrote to Nestorius to deliver the news of both Rome’s and Alexandria’s synods and to call on him to recant. By this time Nestorius had already appealed to Theodosius II for a council and the emperor had agreed. At the council, Cyril would be the major defender of calling Mary Theotokos and the statement that Christ is the perfect unity of God and man.
Because the Pope did not attend the council, Cyril was made president. The council was scheduled to begin on June 7th but had to be postponed when a major contingency of bishops from the East (most notably John, the bishop of Antioch) had not arrived. On the 22nd, Cyril finally decided to convene the council without them. Despite repeated requests for his attendance, Nestorius refused to attend because of Cyril’s role as president. The council met and voted to affirm Cyril’s second letter to Nestorius (in which he had outlined his Christology in full) as in agreement with the Nicene Creed and to denounce Nestorius’ Christology (outlined in his response to Cyril’s second letter) as blasphemous and opposed to the faith of Nicaea.
When John and the Eastern bishops finally arrived, they were outraged to find that the council had already convened and come to a decision. They convened their own council immediately, condemning and excommunicating Cyril and others. Not surprisingly, this led to confusion, conflict and intrigue. Ultimately, though, the decision of Cyril’s council was approved by both Rome and Constantinople.
The Result
Lasting Significance
The Council of Ephesus confirmed the hypostatic union of Christ as it was made explicit in the Nicene Creed. And, as “Wikipedia aptly summarizes, this had long-lasting significance: “This precipitated the Nestorian Schism, by which churches supportive of Nestorius, especially in Persia, were severed from the rest of Christendom and became known as Nestorian Christianity, the Persian Church, or the Church of the East, whose present-day representatives are the Assyrian Church of the East, the Chaldean Syrian Church, the Ancient Church of the East, and the Chaldean Catholic Church.” Once again, Trinitarian doctrine had been defended and further clarified.Scotland Arrests American for Homophobic Aggravation
Police in Scotland arrested an American Christian for publicly preaching against sexual sin.
Former Los Angeles Deputy Sheriff Tony Miano, 49, is charged with breach of peace and "homophobic aggravation." Miano was taking part in a one-week outreach in Scotland.
Last year, London police arrested Miano, charging him with breaching a public ordinance that bans the use of insulting words after he publicly called homosexuality a sin.
Now, it's happened again.
The UK legal group Christian Concern said Miano was in Scotland with a team of street evangelists.
When he began to preach about sexual sin, a woman became aggravated and shouted that her son was gay.
She called the police, who detained him overnight.
He now has to appear in court on April 7.
Former Los Angeles Deputy Sheriff Tony Miano, 49, is charged with breach of peace and "homophobic aggravation." Miano was taking part in a one-week outreach in Scotland.
Last year, London police arrested Miano, charging him with breaching a public ordinance that bans the use of insulting words after he publicly called homosexuality a sin.
Now, it's happened again.
The UK legal group Christian Concern said Miano was in Scotland with a team of street evangelists.
When he began to preach about sexual sin, a woman became aggravated and shouted that her son was gay.
She called the police, who detained him overnight.
He now has to appear in court on April 7.
The Existential Elephant in the ‘Christian Persecution’ Room
Open Doors USA recently released its widely cited 2014 World Watch List—a report that highlights and ranks the 50 worst nations around the globe persecuting Christians.
The one glaring fact that emerges from this report is that the overwhelming majority of Christian persecution around the globe today is being committed at the hands of Muslims of all races, languages, cultures, and socio-political circumstances: Muslims from among America’s allies (Saudi Arabia) and its enemies (Iran); Muslims from economically rich nations (Qatar) and from poor nations (Somalia and Yemen); Muslims from “Islamic republic” nations (Pakistan) and from “moderate” nations (Malaysia and Indonesia); Muslims from nations rescued by America (Kuwait) and Muslims claiming “grievances” against America (fill in the space __).
A common denominator, a pattern, exists, one that is even more extensive than Open Doors implies. According to that organization’s communications director, Emily Fuentes, “of the 50 worst nations for persecution, 37 of them are Muslim,” or 74 percent.
In fact, while this number suggests that the other 13 countries making the top 50 are not Muslim—for example Kenya and Ethiopia—those doing the persecution there are.
In other words, those persecuting Christians in 41 of 50 nations are Muslims; that is, a whopping 82 percent of all persecution around the globe is being committed by adherents of Islam—sometimes in Christian majority nations, for example, the Central African Republic which, after the 2013 Islamic takeover, now ranks No. 16, “severe persecution” (the Christian-majority nation did not even appear in the previous year’s top 50).
As for the top ten absolute worst nations, where, according to the 2014 World Watch List, Christians suffer “extreme persecution,” nine—that is, 90 percent—are Muslim.(Indeed, Open Doors’ global map of Christian persecution can easily be confused with a global map of the Islamic world, with the exception of China (ranked 37, “moderate persecution”) and some sporadic countries dominated by crime and godless tyranny, Colombia, North Korea, etc.)
Similarly, a recent Morning Star News report listing 2013’s ten most horrific anecdotes of Christian persecution around the world finds that nine out of ten—again, 90 percent—were committed at the hands of those professing Islam.
Still, considering that the 2014 World Watch List ranks North Korea—non-Islamic, communist—as the number one worst persecutor of Christians, why belabor the religious identity of Muslims?
Here we come to some critically important but blurred distinctions. While Christians are indeed suffering extreme persecution in North Korea, these fall into the realm of the temporal, the aberrant, even. Something as simple as overthrowing the North Korean regime would likely end persecution there almost overnight—just as the fall of Communist Soviet Union saw religious persecution come to a quick close.
In the Islamic world, however, a similar scenario would not alleviate the sufferings of Christians by an iota. Quite the opposite; where dictators fall—Mubarak in Egypt, Qaddafi in Libya, and ongoing attempts to oust Assad in Syria—Christian persecution rises.
The reason for this dichotomy is that Christian persecution by non-Muslims (mostly communists) is often rooted to a temporal regime or ideology. Conversely, Muslim persecution of Christians is perennial, existential, and far transcends this or that regime or ruler. It is part and parcel of the history, doctrines, and socio-political makeup of Islam—hence its tenacity; hence its ubiquity.
Still, the significance of all this is often overlooked. Thus, “Dr. David Curry, CEO and president of Open Doors USA, told The Blaze ‘Not every circumstance is the same. For example, in North Korea, you have a quasi-Stalinist government that is the most difficult place to call yourself a Christian on the planet — and has been for the last 12 years,’ he noted. But while North Korea’s government is the real culprit, in places like Iraq, ‘roving extremist groups’ are waging attacks against Christians, while government officials are seemingly powerless to stop the carnage, he explained.”
True; but atheistic Stalinism/communism is a relatively new phenomenon—about a century old—and, over the years, its rule (if not variants of its ideology) has greatly waned, so that only a handful of nations today are communist.
On the other hand, “roving extremist groups” (also known in other contexts and countries as “Islamists,” “terrorists,” “mujahidin,” “mobs,” “radicals,” “people-with-grievances,” etc.) attacking and killing “infidel” Christians have been around since the dawn of Islam. It is a well-documented, even if suppressed, history
To further understand the differences between temporal and existential persecution, consider: Russia, once a staunch Orthodox Christian nation, led the communist movement and persecuted its own Christians; yet today, a century later, it is becoming more orthodox again, prominent among Western nations for showing support for persecuted Christians
North Korea—where its leader, Kim Jong-Un, is worshipped as a god and the people are shielded from reality, including outside their borders—seems to be experiencing what Russia did under the Soviet Union and thus living in a delusional state.
But if the once mighty USSR could not persevere, surely it’s a matter of time before tiny North Korea’s walls also come crumbling down, with the resulting religious freedom that former communist nations have experienced. Tellingly, the only countries that were part of the USSR that still persecute Christians are Muslim, such as Uzbekistan (ranked No. 15, “severe persecution”) and Turkmenistan (ranked NO. 20, also “severe persecution”).
Time, however, is not on the side of Christians living amid Muslims; quite the opposite. Since the 7th century, when Islam came into being, Muslims have been invading and conquering Christian lands so that more than half of the territory that was once Christian in the 7th century—including all of North Africa and the Levant—are today the heart of the “Muslim world.”
Muslim persecution of Christians exists in 41 nations today as part of a continuum that started nearly 14 centuries ago. As I document in Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians, the very same patterns of Christian persecution prevalent throughout the Muslim world today are often identical to those from centuries past. The facts speak for themselves.
Put differently, long after North Korea’s Kim Jong-Un has gone the way of the dodo, Islam will still be here and—short of a miraculous “reformation”—still treating Christians and other “infidels” like it did for centuries.
Confronting this understandably discomforting and better-left-unsaid fact is the first real step to alleviating the sufferings of the overwhelming majority of Christians around the world.
Unfortunately, however, while some are willing to point out that Christians are being persecuted around the Muslim world—why that is the case, why 82 percent of the world’s persecution is committed by Muslims from a variety of backgrounds and circumstances—is the great elephant in the room that few wish to address. For doing so would cause some long held and cherished premises of the modern West to come crashing down.
CBN News contributor Raymond Ibrahim is author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians. He is a Shillman Fellow, David Horowitz Freedom Center; Associate Fellow, Middle East Forum; and 2013 Media Fellow, Hoover Institution.
Military Brethren: Stand To for 20 January, 2014
Veterans Push Back with Prayer
0700 at BJ’s Restaurant
Hamilton, Montana
1. Opening - Round the Table
Individual Prayers
2. Morning Psalm: 128
3. Breakfast Reading: John
1:35-51
4. Breakfast is served
5. Breakfast Discussion Topic:
What did you learn at church yesterday?
52 Weeks to Preparedness
Week 3
of 52: Emergency Medical Supply (List 1)
Holy Saturday
March for Jesus Christ April 19, 2014
6. Closing - Round the Table
Individual Prayers
Upcoming Events:
20 Jan 2014 –
0700 - Push Back with Prayer
27 Jan 2014 –
0700 - Push Back with Prayer
3 Feb 2014 –
0700 - Push Back with Prayer
10 Feb 2014 –
0700 – Push Back with Prayer
17 Feb 2014 –
0700 – Push Back with Prayer
19 Apr 2014 –
0645 – Holy Saturday March for Jesus Christ
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Blood Red Moons and the Prophecies of Rabbi Kaduri - A Cautionary Note
Wed, Jan. 15, 2014 Posted: 07:04 AM
After the publication of Hal Lindsey’s ‘Late Great Planet Earth’ in 1970, a renewed interest in all things about the second coming of Christ was inaugurated.
The only unfortunate aspect of the renewed interest in prophecy was that it produced what came to be known as ‘prophecy buffs.’ Prophecy is not something we can approach like a hobby, it is one of the most serious aspects of scriptures and covers about one third of the entire bible. God wants his people to be well prepared not just happy to share their latest opinion or speculation.
In the early days, when it became the most talked about subject among the Christians one of the most oft repeated statements heard had to do with the splitting of the Mount of Olives as Christ descends back to earth.
The scripture clearly says that the Mount of Olives will be split and part will move northward and the other part will push off to the south.
“And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.” (Zec 14: 4)
Christians would often remark that a rift or a seismological fault line had been discovered running across the Mount of Olives from east to west. It is true, that scientist discovered one of the largest tectonic plate fault lines on earth running from the Jordan Valley all the way to Africa’s Zambezi River, a distance of over 4,000 miles.
Does God need or require help from geography, science or natural occurrences to fulfill his plans?
To mention the great ‘Valley Rift’ was to lend credence to the prophecies of Zechariah. Who would doubt the prophecy about a splitting mountain if science had discovered a fault line? Now, God had help from nature and science – how could he fail?
This nonsensical deduction was repeated often to the chagrin of those who had far less trouble discerning the fullest meaning of the word omnipotent. God does not need help from nature. Nature depends on God.
The God who created this world in seven days (contrary to Darwin’s disciples) would hardly need a fault line to crack a mountain. In fact, at the second coming of Christ, topographical changes will be made across the face of the earth. Prior to the millennial reign of Christ, (1,000 years) the earth will be changed to produce food for billions more than it supports today.
“And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found.” (Rev 16: 20)
The all-important difference between astronomy and astrology applies to the Blood Red Moons
Interest in the upcoming blood red moons in 2014 – 2015 (tetrads) is reaching a crescendo among prophecy teachers and devotees. Pastor John Hagee has written his book entitled “Four Blood Moons,” and has been interviewed by Fox News and other media sites which are now beginning to tune in to the second coming doctrines of the bible. So what is the problem?
Actually, there may be no problem at all if the prophecies turn out to line up with the second coming prophecies. If they do not; what we have is a repeat of the Harold Camping debacle and far worse, we will have more cause for scoffers to dismiss the warnings of scripture to a lost and dying world that Jesus Christ is about to return in power to judge the quick and the dead.
Here, is where we must resort to the power of definitions. The definitions of astronomy and of astrology are both very simple, but they are worlds apart. The American Astronomical Society has one of the best explanations that can be found.
“Astronomy is a science that studies everything outside of the earth's atmosphere, such as planets, stars, asteroids, galaxies; and the properties and relationships of those celestial bodies. Astronomers base their studies on research and observation. Astrology on the other hand, is the belief that the positioning of the stars and planets affect the way events occur on earth.”
The most familiar example to use is the belief that in 2012 the Age of Aquarius began as the vernal equinox point moves out of constellation Pisces and into Aquarius. Then a new age of peace and harmony is said to follow. It is purely astrological in nature and mostly pure baloney in fact.
Astronomy is an exact science, whereas astrology is the business of making predictions and prognostications based on the alignment and movements of the planets and stars. It is largely just nonsense, arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, but one thing is certain for all Christians, using or practicing astrology is strictly forbidden in the bible from one cover to the next.
Solar and lunar eclipses and any other movement of celestial bodies is open to the scientific examination of astronomers, but when predictions about the future of entire civilizations or individuals is derived from these movements, we have passed into the realm of astrological prognostication.
Taking note of the upcoming blood moons makes for interesting conversation, but when it is used to predict, we may want to re-visit the following scriptural passage.
“You are wearied with your many counsels; let them stand forth and save you, those who divide the heavens, who gaze at the stars, who at the new moons make known what shall come upon you. Behold, they are like stubble; the fire consumes them; they cannot deliver themselves from the power of the flame. No coal for warming oneself is this, no fire to sit before” (Isa 47: 13–14)
Those who are seeking understanding and are drawn to these natural signs are not doing anything wrong, but to the degree that they are used to guide, defer or completely engage believers to make choices based on them, it stands out as a means to fall into error.
Anything considered extra-biblical must be handled carefully and the general rule is that if it is supplemental it is good, but extra-biblical materials must never be substitutional or in direct conflict with scriptures.
In the scriptures, much more has to happen prior to the blood moon and much more happens following that event as well, to wit:
“And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?” (Rev 6: 12-17)
Taking a wait and see attitude with the prophecies of Rabbi Kaduri
Famed and highly venerated, the late Rabbi Yitzhak Kaduri predicted that after the death of former prime minister Ariel Sharon that the Messiah would be revealed. Sharon died Saturday January 11, 2014.
A book and a movie are available entitled “The Rabbi Who Found Messiah.” Here also we must issue a cautionary note as Kaduri’s prophecies now begin to unfold - or not.
Three very important factors must not be ignored when considering Kaduri’s prophetic disclosures.
“Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” (Mt 24: 23-27)
American Prophet.org has since 2005 featured the articles and reports of journalist Rev Michael Bresciani along with news and reviews that have earned this site the title of The Website for Insight. Millions have read his timely reports and articles in online journals and print publications across the nation and the globe. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook
The only unfortunate aspect of the renewed interest in prophecy was that it produced what came to be known as ‘prophecy buffs.’ Prophecy is not something we can approach like a hobby, it is one of the most serious aspects of scriptures and covers about one third of the entire bible. God wants his people to be well prepared not just happy to share their latest opinion or speculation.
In the early days, when it became the most talked about subject among the Christians one of the most oft repeated statements heard had to do with the splitting of the Mount of Olives as Christ descends back to earth.
The scripture clearly says that the Mount of Olives will be split and part will move northward and the other part will push off to the south.
“And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.” (Zec 14: 4)
Christians would often remark that a rift or a seismological fault line had been discovered running across the Mount of Olives from east to west. It is true, that scientist discovered one of the largest tectonic plate fault lines on earth running from the Jordan Valley all the way to Africa’s Zambezi River, a distance of over 4,000 miles.
Does God need or require help from geography, science or natural occurrences to fulfill his plans?
To mention the great ‘Valley Rift’ was to lend credence to the prophecies of Zechariah. Who would doubt the prophecy about a splitting mountain if science had discovered a fault line? Now, God had help from nature and science – how could he fail?
This nonsensical deduction was repeated often to the chagrin of those who had far less trouble discerning the fullest meaning of the word omnipotent. God does not need help from nature. Nature depends on God.
The God who created this world in seven days (contrary to Darwin’s disciples) would hardly need a fault line to crack a mountain. In fact, at the second coming of Christ, topographical changes will be made across the face of the earth. Prior to the millennial reign of Christ, (1,000 years) the earth will be changed to produce food for billions more than it supports today.
“And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found.” (Rev 16: 20)
The all-important difference between astronomy and astrology applies to the Blood Red Moons
Interest in the upcoming blood red moons in 2014 – 2015 (tetrads) is reaching a crescendo among prophecy teachers and devotees. Pastor John Hagee has written his book entitled “Four Blood Moons,” and has been interviewed by Fox News and other media sites which are now beginning to tune in to the second coming doctrines of the bible. So what is the problem?
Actually, there may be no problem at all if the prophecies turn out to line up with the second coming prophecies. If they do not; what we have is a repeat of the Harold Camping debacle and far worse, we will have more cause for scoffers to dismiss the warnings of scripture to a lost and dying world that Jesus Christ is about to return in power to judge the quick and the dead.
Here, is where we must resort to the power of definitions. The definitions of astronomy and of astrology are both very simple, but they are worlds apart. The American Astronomical Society has one of the best explanations that can be found.
“Astronomy is a science that studies everything outside of the earth's atmosphere, such as planets, stars, asteroids, galaxies; and the properties and relationships of those celestial bodies. Astronomers base their studies on research and observation. Astrology on the other hand, is the belief that the positioning of the stars and planets affect the way events occur on earth.”
The most familiar example to use is the belief that in 2012 the Age of Aquarius began as the vernal equinox point moves out of constellation Pisces and into Aquarius. Then a new age of peace and harmony is said to follow. It is purely astrological in nature and mostly pure baloney in fact.
Astronomy is an exact science, whereas astrology is the business of making predictions and prognostications based on the alignment and movements of the planets and stars. It is largely just nonsense, arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, but one thing is certain for all Christians, using or practicing astrology is strictly forbidden in the bible from one cover to the next.
Solar and lunar eclipses and any other movement of celestial bodies is open to the scientific examination of astronomers, but when predictions about the future of entire civilizations or individuals is derived from these movements, we have passed into the realm of astrological prognostication.
Taking note of the upcoming blood moons makes for interesting conversation, but when it is used to predict, we may want to re-visit the following scriptural passage.
“You are wearied with your many counsels; let them stand forth and save you, those who divide the heavens, who gaze at the stars, who at the new moons make known what shall come upon you. Behold, they are like stubble; the fire consumes them; they cannot deliver themselves from the power of the flame. No coal for warming oneself is this, no fire to sit before” (Isa 47: 13–14)
Those who are seeking understanding and are drawn to these natural signs are not doing anything wrong, but to the degree that they are used to guide, defer or completely engage believers to make choices based on them, it stands out as a means to fall into error.
Anything considered extra-biblical must be handled carefully and the general rule is that if it is supplemental it is good, but extra-biblical materials must never be substitutional or in direct conflict with scriptures.
In the scriptures, much more has to happen prior to the blood moon and much more happens following that event as well, to wit:
“And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?” (Rev 6: 12-17)
Taking a wait and see attitude with the prophecies of Rabbi Kaduri
Famed and highly venerated, the late Rabbi Yitzhak Kaduri predicted that after the death of former prime minister Ariel Sharon that the Messiah would be revealed. Sharon died Saturday January 11, 2014.
A book and a movie are available entitled “The Rabbi Who Found Messiah.” Here also we must issue a cautionary note as Kaduri’s prophecies now begin to unfold - or not.
Three very important factors must not be ignored when considering Kaduri’s prophetic disclosures.
1. The Jewish people including Rabbi Kaduri have been in unbelief until this day. They do not believe their Messiah has come and certainly they do not think Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of their messianic biblical prophecies. Because Kaduri said that the messiah he saw may not know at first that he is messiah is cause for some to think he may have seen the false prophet or the antichrist. If Jesus Christ doesn’t know he is the Messiah by now we are all simply sunk.
2. With or without the Kaduri prophecies so many last days’ prophecies have been fulfilled that the shear preponderance of those biblical signs means that Christ could appear at any moment. The bible doesn’t need a Kaduri prophecy and the fact that we are on the cusp of all last days events is recognized by every major prophecy teacher of the day.
3. Kaduri has given the impression that the messiah he saw would be a man of the day, born of a women and residing among the living of this day. Christ will not be born of women again and when he comes he will be seen by every human being in the entire world. There will be no mistake about just who he is or what he is up to, to wit.
“Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.” (Rev 1: 7)
These warnings are not meant to dismiss, deny or dis-credit the aforementioned prophecies or signs; they are a call to caution. Christ was himself the first to issue such warnings.“Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” (Mt 24: 23-27)
American Prophet.org has since 2005 featured the articles and reports of journalist Rev Michael Bresciani along with news and reviews that have earned this site the title of The Website for Insight. Millions have read his timely reports and articles in online journals and print publications across the nation and the globe. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook
Michael Bresciani
Sunday, January 12, 2014
Westminster Shorter Catechism in Modern English - Question #11
Q. 11. What are God's works of providence?
A. God's works of providence are his most holy,[a] wise,[b] and powerful[c] preservation[d] and control[e] of all his creatures, and all their actions.[f]
A. God's works of providence are his most holy,[a] wise,[b] and powerful[c] preservation[d] and control[e] of all his creatures, and all their actions.[f]
[a] Psalm 145:17
Wycliffe Bible (WYC)
17 The Lord is just in all his ways; and holy in all his works.
[b] Psalm 104:24
Wycliffe Bible (WYC)
24 Lord, thy works be magnified full much, thou hast made all things in wisdom; the earth is filled with thy possession(s). (Lord, thou hast made a great many things, thou hast made all things by thy wisdom; the earth is filled with thy creatures.)
[c] Hebrews 1:3
Wycliffe Bible (WYC)
3 Which when also he is the brightness of glory, and [the] figure of his substance, and beareth all things [and bearing all things] by word of his virtue, he maketh purgation of sins, and sitteth on the right half of the majesty in heavens [sitteth on the right half of majesty in high things];
[d] Nehemiah 9:6
Wycliffe Bible (WYC)
6 Thou thyself, Lord, art alone/Thou thyself, Lord, art alone God; thou madest heaven, and the heaven of heavens, and all the host of those heavens; thou madest the earth and all things that be therein; thou madest the seas and all things that be in them; and thou quickenest all these things; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee. (Thou thyself, art Lord alone/Thou thyself, Lord, art God alone; thou madest the heavens, yea, the highest heavens, and all the stars of the sky; thou madest the earth and all the things that be on it; thou madest the seas and all the things that be in them; and thou quickenest all these things; and the host of heaven, that is, the heavenly powers, worshippeth thee.)
[e] Ephesians 1:19-22
Wycliffe Bible (WYC)
19 and which is the excellent greatness of his virtue into us that have believed, by the working of the might of his virtue, [and which is the over-seeming greatness of his virtue into us that have believed, after the working of the might of his virtue,]
20 which he wrought in Christ, raising him from death [raising him from dead], and setting him on his right half in heavenly things,
21 above each principat, and potentate, and virtue, and domination, and above each name that is named, not only in this world, but also in the world to coming [and each name that is named, not only in this world, but also in the world to come];
22 and made all things subject under his feet, and gave him to be head over all the church,
[f] Psalm 36:6
Wycliffe Bible (WYC)
6 Thy rightfulness is as the hills of God; thy dooms be (as) much depth of waters. Lord, thou shalt save men and beasts; (Thy righteousness is as high as the mountains; thy judgements, or thy just acts, be as deep as the water. Lord, thou shalt save people and beasts;)
Proverbs 16:33
Wycliffe Bible (WYC)
33 Lots be sent into the bosom; but they be tempered of the Lord. (Lots can be cast into the lap; but they shall be decided, or determined, by the Lord.)
Matthew 10:30
Wycliffe Bible (WYC)
30 And all the hairs of your head be numbered
Comment on Q. 11
God not only made the worlds but continues to maintain them, otherwise they could not continue to exist. It is in God that all things live, and move, and have their being (Acts 18:28). God governs everything, and because he is all-powerful his plan is fulfilled. Not even a sparrow can die without his will. Yet in everything he is holy and wise. The actions of men are under his control but the sinfulness of the sinful acts of men belongs entirely to themselves.
Saturday, January 11, 2014
14 Predictions for American Churches for 2014 (Part 2)
January 6, 2014|6:06 am
In my earlier post on the first of this year, I offered the first seven of fourteen predictions for American churches for 2014. I must admit I am concerned about my focus on American congregations when so much is taking place in churches around the world. I am challenged to write more global posts for fear they will become too generic without local applications. I will continue to work on that issue.For now, I will continue to look at American congregations. As a reminder, I noted that my predictions are based on both objective and subjective information. Each of the predictions has a reasonable explanation. For these fourteen predictions, I gleaned from several sources:
- Data-based research, particularly LifeWay Research.
- Trends that are already underway and gaining momentum.
- Conversations with hundreds of church leaders.
- My own experiences, based on 25 years of consulting and research of American congregations.
The order of the trends is random. They are not ranked in any particular priority. On Wednesday, I shared the first seven predictions. I conclude today with the final seven.
8. More large churches will function like mini-denominations. These churches will have multiple locations. They will have one senior or lead pastor, and several other campus pastors. They are more likely to fund their own missions priorities, even if they are also contributing to a denominational missions fund. Many of them will write their own small group literature. Some will have their own church planting strategies. (70% confidence factor)
9. New worship centers will be built smaller. There will be a greater emphasis on smaller gatherings more frequently. This trend is being affected significantly by the preferences of the Millennial generation (born 1980 to 2000). A related trend is that many congregations will find ways to downsize their existing worship centers. (70%)
10. Increased emphasis on small groups. In 2014 we will see a decided shift from nearly two decades of the "worship revolution" to the "small group revolution." Church leaders are rapidly discovering that members who connect to groups are the most faithful members in the church by a myriad of metrics. That is not to suggest that worship will become unimportant; it is to suggest that small groups will have a greater emphasis than the previous quarter century. (75%)
11. Longer pastoral tenure. There will be incremental but steady growth in the length of tenure of pastors at a given church. Part of the reason is the influence of the Millennials who do not view larger churches as their next step in ministry. Part of the reason is economic; moving in today's economy is not nearly as easy in pre-recession days. Hopefully, the main reason is a sense of God's call to stay rather than move. (75%)
12. Local churches increasing their roles as ministry training leaders. The role of ministry training in the past decades fell largely upon Bible colleges and seminaries. More churches in 2014 will partner with those colleges and seminaries to provide contextual training at a local church. (90%)
13. Church movement to the community. The posture of many American churches in the most recent decades has been to find ways to get people in the community to come to the church. That is shifting, perhaps dramatically. In more churches, the congregation will move to the community. Instead of a philosophy of "y'all come," the dominant theme will be "we'll go." The congregants will be a more powerful presence in the community they serve, thus ministering to, influencing, and reaching more people with the gospel. (80%)
14. More multiple teaching/preaching pastors. In larger churches, there has been a decided trend toward having more than one teaching and preaching pastor. Now the trend is taking place in smaller churches. We will see more churches with attendance under 200, even some under 100, with more than one teaching/preaching pastor. Of course, not all of them will be full-time vocationally at the church, so there will be more bi-vocational pastors whose role is to be a second or even third pastor in these smaller churches. (85%)
These fourteen predictions are not infallible. But there does seem to be growing evidence that most, if not all of them, will become a reality in 2014.
14 Predictions for American Churches for 2014 (Part 1)
January 1, 2014|11:35 am
Predicting is as much of an art as it is a science. And if any prognosticator is honest, he or she will tell you that they don't always get it right. I know. I certainly don't always get it right.But I don't pull my predictions out of thin air. To the contrary, each of them has a reasonable explanation. For these fourteen predictions, I gleaned from several sources:
- Data-based research, particularly LifeWay Research.
- Trends that are already underway and gaining momentum.
- Conversations with hundreds of church leaders.
- My own experiences, based on 25 years of consulting and research of American congregations.
The order of the trends is random. They are not ranked in any particular priority. Today, I will share the first seven, and then conclude with the final seven on Saturday.
1. Increased church acquisitions. Smaller churches will seek to be acquired by larger churches in increasing numbers. One of the big factors is simply personnel cost. Many smaller churches can no longer afford to pay a pastor a salary and benefits, particularly health care benefits. (75% confidence factor).
2. Downsizing of denominational structures. Many denominational structures are becoming smaller because their churches are declining. Others are feeling economic pinches. This trend of smaller and more efficient denominational structures at all levels will only become more pervasive in 2014. (90%).
3. Decline in conversion growth. American churches that grow are more likely to get their growth at the expense of other churches. Evangelism is waning in many churches, and fewer non-believers are becoming Christians. The negative reaction to programmatic evangelistic methods has evolved into an overreaction. Too few churches emphasize personal and church-based evangelism. (75%)
4. More megachurches. The data are clear that there are more megachurches (average worship attendance of 2,000 or more) today than a year ago. There is also little doubt the trend will continue. The only uncertainty is whether or not the rate of growth of megachurches will continue to climb. (85%)
5. Greater number of churches moving to a unified worship style. For years a noticeable trend was churches offering different worship styles. The most common was the offering of two services: traditional and contemporary, though the definitions of each were elusive. In the next year we will we see a reversal of that trend, as many of those same churches decide to move to one common worship style. (70%)
6. Increased emphasis on high-expectation church membership. For decades American congregations as a whole lowered their expectations of church membership. One could be on a church roll in many churches and not even attend worship services for years. We will see a gradual reversal of that trend in 2014 as more churches move to higher-expectation membership. (70%).
7. Increased challenges for congregations to build and acquire land due to restrictive governmental policies. American churches will experience more frustration with governmental authorities as they seek to expand, build, and acquire land. Part of the reason will be due to the authorities' concern about traffic and congestions. Another part is the underlying concern of losing a property tax base to a nonprofit organization. In a few cases there will be outright animosity and prejudice against Christians and churches. (80%)
It Is Not Over
by Chuck Baldwin
Everywhere I go, I meet people who seem to believe that it’s all over, that there is no hope, that freedom is forever doomed. The doom and gloomers are omnipresent. But there is a great line in the newest version of the movie “Red Dawn” that should help put it all in perspective. One of the freedom fighters says, “I’m still breathing so, it’s not over.” I love that line. I feel exactly the same way.
There is no question that the forces of globalism and socialism have pretty much had their way over the past few decades. And with very few exceptions, we don’t have a lot of allies in Washington, D.C., and in most State capitals. For that matter, we don’t have a lot of allies on Wall Street or in most classrooms. But that doesn’t mean that it’s over: not by a long shot.
Freedom didn’t have a majority in 1775 and 1776, either. I doubt that one could find any time in history when the proponents of liberty were ever in a majority. Sam Adams may have said it best when he said, “It does not take a majority to prevail...but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”
However, there is one thing that Colonial America had that modern America doesn’t have: a patriot pulpit. The pulpits of Colonial America were ablaze with the fire of liberty. Colonial clergymen of every Christian denomination explained, extolled, enlightened, expounded, and elucidated the Natural Biblical principles of liberty from their pulpits continuously. Remember that it was mostly the men of Pastor Jonas Clark’s congregation at the Church of Lexington that stood armed on Lexington Green against British troops in the wee morning hours of April 19, 1775, and fired the shot heard ’round the world.
Publisher and historian Gerald Nordskog writes these words about Jonas Clark: “As the pastor of the church at Lexington, he typically gave four sermons a week, written out and orally presented--nearly 2200 sermons in his lifetime. His preaching was vigorous in style, animated in manner, instructive in matter, and delivered with uncommon energy and zeal, with an agreeable and powerful voice. His sermons were rarely less than an hour, often more.”
Nordskog continues, “It can be regarded only as a singularly happy circumstance that, as Lexington was to be the place where resistance to the power of England was first to occur, and the great act of a declaration of war first to be made by the act of the people in the blood to be there shed, making the place forever famous in history, the minister of Lexington should have been a man of the principles, character, courage, and energy of Mr. Clark.
“It can be regarded he was eminently a man produced by the times--more than equal to them; rather a guide and leader. All his previous life, his preaching, his intercourse and conversation among his people had been but a continued and most effectual preparation for the noble stand taken by his people on the morning of the 19th of April, 1775. The militia on the Common that morning were the same who filled the pews of the meetinghouse on the Sunday morning before, and the same who hung upon the rear of the retreating enemy in the forenoon and throughout the day. They were only carrying the preaching of many previous years into practice.
“It would not be beyond the truth to assert that there was no person at that time and in that vicinity--not only no clergyman but no other person of whatever calling or profession, who took a firmer stand for the liberties of the country or was more ready to perform the duties and endure the sacrifices of a patriot, than the minister of Lexington.
“When the struggle actually commenced, the people were ready for it, thoroughly acquainted with the reasons on which the duty of resistance was founded, and prepared to discharge the duty at every hazard. No population within the compass of the Colonies were better prepared for the events of the 19th of April, than the people of Lexington; no people to whom the events of that day could more safely have been entrusted; none more worthy of the duties that fell to their lot; or who better deserved the honours which have followed the faithful performance of them. No single individual probably did so much to educate the people up to that point of intelligence, firmness, and courage, as their honoured and beloved pastor.” (Nordskog, Gerald Christian; The Battle of Lexington; Nordskog Publishing; 2007; Print.)
Can one imagine how history would have been changed had the Church of Lexington, Massachusetts, and all of the churches of Colonial America for that matter, been occupied with the kinds of ministers we have today? I can tell you this: there would have been no Lexington Green and Concord Bridge; no Bunker Hill; no Valley Forge; no Declaration of Independence; no U.S. Constitution; and no United States of America. And that is an absolute fact. The erroneous interpretation of Romans 13, so prevalent today among pastors and churches, would have instructed the colonists that it would be a sin against God to rebel against King George. Pastors would have taught their congregations to be good little slaves to the Crown. Without a doubt, had Colonial America had the kinds of ministers we have today, we would still be a subjected colony of Great Britain to this very hour.
And if you think Jonas Clark was the exception to the rule in Colonial America, you haven’t studied history. Men such as John Witherspoon, James Caldwell, John Peter Muhlenberg, Joab Houghton, Ebenezer Baldwin, Elisha Williams, Charles Chauncy, Jonathan Mayhew, Isaac Backus, Samuel Sherwood, John Fletcher, John Leland, etc., etc, inspired and instructed Christians of all denominations regarding their duties and responsibilities as free men and women under God--including the duty to free themselves from the yoke of bondage.
So prominent was the role that Presbyterian pastors played in the American Revolution that as news of the rebellion spread throughout England, Horace Walpole told his fellow members of the British Parliament, “There is no use crying about it. Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian parson, and that is the end of it.” And Presbyterian ministers were not the only ones to rally the church for the cause of independence.
So many Baptist preachers participated in America’s War for Independence that at the conclusion of the war, President George Washington wrote a personal letter to the Baptist people saying, “I recollect with satisfaction that the religious societies of which you are a member have been, throughout America, uniformly and almost unanimously, the firm friends to civil liberty, and the preserving promoters of our glorious Revolution.” It also explains how Thomas Jefferson could write to a Baptist congregation and say, “We have acted together from the origin to the end of a memorable Revolution.” (McDaniel, George White. The People Called Baptists. The Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1918. Print.)
But it was ministers from all of the Christian denominations who sounded the clarion call for freedom from their pulpits. Writing in the mid-1800s, noted attorney and historian John Wingate Thornton said, “To the Pulpit, the Puritan Pulpit, we owe the moral force which won our independence.”
The patriot pulpit is what Colonial America had that modern America doesn’t have. We lack the “moral force” of that patriot pulpit. For the most part, America’s pastors today are shy, sheepish servants of the state. For the American people to once again muster the courage and conviction to reclaim their liberties requires a revival of the patriot pulpit. As long as Christian people stay seated in the padded pews of these passive pulpits, our nation will continue to plummet into the pit. But this is where the good news begins.
All over the country, tens of thousands of Christians are leaving these timid and cowardly ministers--even pastors are leaving their timid congregations behind and joining up with freedom-minded believers in brand new independent fellowships.
For example, we have over 800 patriot pastors listed on our Black Regiment web page. These are ministers who are not afraid to identify themselves as a patriot pastor and have asked to be included in the list. I invite you to search the list and see if there is a Black Regiment pastor near you. See it here:
The Black Regiment
Furthermore, there are thousands of Christians who are leaving these say-nothing churches and starting home churches or are meeting with small groups of believers who also share their love of liberty. In addition, we have hundreds of believers who, because they cannot find a patriot pastor in their community, are tuning into the service at Liberty Fellowship each Sunday afternoon at 2:30 Mountain Time and listening to our messages.
To watch our messages live each Sunday afternoon online, go to:
Live Stream
One may also watch my archived messages here:
Video Messages
I am personally convinced that there will be a “latter rain” of God’s outpoured blessings, including the blessings of liberty, upon His remnant in America. The fires of liberty are burning too brightly in too many hearts. And more and more of Sam Adams’ “brushfires of freedom” are being lit by the day. I firmly believe that what is now a trickle of revival and separation from these dead churches will soon become a torrent. Patriot pastors and congregations are being reborn and rebuilt at this very moment.
If it means we must forsake the establishment church, so be it. If it means we must leave the sleeping and lethargic behind, so be it. If it means we must relocate, so be it. If it means we must break old traditions, so be it. If it means it might cost us something, so be it. We fought and won our liberties once; we can do it again.
Is there no hope? Is it all over? Too many freedom lovers are still breathing so, it’s not over.
(c) Chuck Baldwin
Everywhere I go, I meet people who seem to believe that it’s all over, that there is no hope, that freedom is forever doomed. The doom and gloomers are omnipresent. But there is a great line in the newest version of the movie “Red Dawn” that should help put it all in perspective. One of the freedom fighters says, “I’m still breathing so, it’s not over.” I love that line. I feel exactly the same way.
There is no question that the forces of globalism and socialism have pretty much had their way over the past few decades. And with very few exceptions, we don’t have a lot of allies in Washington, D.C., and in most State capitals. For that matter, we don’t have a lot of allies on Wall Street or in most classrooms. But that doesn’t mean that it’s over: not by a long shot.
Freedom didn’t have a majority in 1775 and 1776, either. I doubt that one could find any time in history when the proponents of liberty were ever in a majority. Sam Adams may have said it best when he said, “It does not take a majority to prevail...but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”
However, there is one thing that Colonial America had that modern America doesn’t have: a patriot pulpit. The pulpits of Colonial America were ablaze with the fire of liberty. Colonial clergymen of every Christian denomination explained, extolled, enlightened, expounded, and elucidated the Natural Biblical principles of liberty from their pulpits continuously. Remember that it was mostly the men of Pastor Jonas Clark’s congregation at the Church of Lexington that stood armed on Lexington Green against British troops in the wee morning hours of April 19, 1775, and fired the shot heard ’round the world.
Publisher and historian Gerald Nordskog writes these words about Jonas Clark: “As the pastor of the church at Lexington, he typically gave four sermons a week, written out and orally presented--nearly 2200 sermons in his lifetime. His preaching was vigorous in style, animated in manner, instructive in matter, and delivered with uncommon energy and zeal, with an agreeable and powerful voice. His sermons were rarely less than an hour, often more.”
Nordskog continues, “It can be regarded only as a singularly happy circumstance that, as Lexington was to be the place where resistance to the power of England was first to occur, and the great act of a declaration of war first to be made by the act of the people in the blood to be there shed, making the place forever famous in history, the minister of Lexington should have been a man of the principles, character, courage, and energy of Mr. Clark.
“It can be regarded he was eminently a man produced by the times--more than equal to them; rather a guide and leader. All his previous life, his preaching, his intercourse and conversation among his people had been but a continued and most effectual preparation for the noble stand taken by his people on the morning of the 19th of April, 1775. The militia on the Common that morning were the same who filled the pews of the meetinghouse on the Sunday morning before, and the same who hung upon the rear of the retreating enemy in the forenoon and throughout the day. They were only carrying the preaching of many previous years into practice.
“It would not be beyond the truth to assert that there was no person at that time and in that vicinity--not only no clergyman but no other person of whatever calling or profession, who took a firmer stand for the liberties of the country or was more ready to perform the duties and endure the sacrifices of a patriot, than the minister of Lexington.
“When the struggle actually commenced, the people were ready for it, thoroughly acquainted with the reasons on which the duty of resistance was founded, and prepared to discharge the duty at every hazard. No population within the compass of the Colonies were better prepared for the events of the 19th of April, than the people of Lexington; no people to whom the events of that day could more safely have been entrusted; none more worthy of the duties that fell to their lot; or who better deserved the honours which have followed the faithful performance of them. No single individual probably did so much to educate the people up to that point of intelligence, firmness, and courage, as their honoured and beloved pastor.” (Nordskog, Gerald Christian; The Battle of Lexington; Nordskog Publishing; 2007; Print.)
Can one imagine how history would have been changed had the Church of Lexington, Massachusetts, and all of the churches of Colonial America for that matter, been occupied with the kinds of ministers we have today? I can tell you this: there would have been no Lexington Green and Concord Bridge; no Bunker Hill; no Valley Forge; no Declaration of Independence; no U.S. Constitution; and no United States of America. And that is an absolute fact. The erroneous interpretation of Romans 13, so prevalent today among pastors and churches, would have instructed the colonists that it would be a sin against God to rebel against King George. Pastors would have taught their congregations to be good little slaves to the Crown. Without a doubt, had Colonial America had the kinds of ministers we have today, we would still be a subjected colony of Great Britain to this very hour.
And if you think Jonas Clark was the exception to the rule in Colonial America, you haven’t studied history. Men such as John Witherspoon, James Caldwell, John Peter Muhlenberg, Joab Houghton, Ebenezer Baldwin, Elisha Williams, Charles Chauncy, Jonathan Mayhew, Isaac Backus, Samuel Sherwood, John Fletcher, John Leland, etc., etc, inspired and instructed Christians of all denominations regarding their duties and responsibilities as free men and women under God--including the duty to free themselves from the yoke of bondage.
So prominent was the role that Presbyterian pastors played in the American Revolution that as news of the rebellion spread throughout England, Horace Walpole told his fellow members of the British Parliament, “There is no use crying about it. Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian parson, and that is the end of it.” And Presbyterian ministers were not the only ones to rally the church for the cause of independence.
So many Baptist preachers participated in America’s War for Independence that at the conclusion of the war, President George Washington wrote a personal letter to the Baptist people saying, “I recollect with satisfaction that the religious societies of which you are a member have been, throughout America, uniformly and almost unanimously, the firm friends to civil liberty, and the preserving promoters of our glorious Revolution.” It also explains how Thomas Jefferson could write to a Baptist congregation and say, “We have acted together from the origin to the end of a memorable Revolution.” (McDaniel, George White. The People Called Baptists. The Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1918. Print.)
But it was ministers from all of the Christian denominations who sounded the clarion call for freedom from their pulpits. Writing in the mid-1800s, noted attorney and historian John Wingate Thornton said, “To the Pulpit, the Puritan Pulpit, we owe the moral force which won our independence.”
The patriot pulpit is what Colonial America had that modern America doesn’t have. We lack the “moral force” of that patriot pulpit. For the most part, America’s pastors today are shy, sheepish servants of the state. For the American people to once again muster the courage and conviction to reclaim their liberties requires a revival of the patriot pulpit. As long as Christian people stay seated in the padded pews of these passive pulpits, our nation will continue to plummet into the pit. But this is where the good news begins.
All over the country, tens of thousands of Christians are leaving these timid and cowardly ministers--even pastors are leaving their timid congregations behind and joining up with freedom-minded believers in brand new independent fellowships.
For example, we have over 800 patriot pastors listed on our Black Regiment web page. These are ministers who are not afraid to identify themselves as a patriot pastor and have asked to be included in the list. I invite you to search the list and see if there is a Black Regiment pastor near you. See it here:
The Black Regiment
Furthermore, there are thousands of Christians who are leaving these say-nothing churches and starting home churches or are meeting with small groups of believers who also share their love of liberty. In addition, we have hundreds of believers who, because they cannot find a patriot pastor in their community, are tuning into the service at Liberty Fellowship each Sunday afternoon at 2:30 Mountain Time and listening to our messages.
To watch our messages live each Sunday afternoon online, go to:
Live Stream
One may also watch my archived messages here:
Video Messages
I am personally convinced that there will be a “latter rain” of God’s outpoured blessings, including the blessings of liberty, upon His remnant in America. The fires of liberty are burning too brightly in too many hearts. And more and more of Sam Adams’ “brushfires of freedom” are being lit by the day. I firmly believe that what is now a trickle of revival and separation from these dead churches will soon become a torrent. Patriot pastors and congregations are being reborn and rebuilt at this very moment.
If it means we must forsake the establishment church, so be it. If it means we must leave the sleeping and lethargic behind, so be it. If it means we must relocate, so be it. If it means we must break old traditions, so be it. If it means it might cost us something, so be it. We fought and won our liberties once; we can do it again.
Is there no hope? Is it all over? Too many freedom lovers are still breathing so, it’s not over.
(c) Chuck Baldwin
Stand To for 13 January, 2014
Veterans Push Back with Prayer
0700 at BJ’s Restaurant
Hamilton, Montana
1. Opening - Round the Table
Individual Prayers
2. Morning Psalm: 93
3. Breakfast Reading: Mark
1:21-28
4. Breakfast is served
5. Breakfast Discussion Topic:
Spiritual Warfare
52 Weeks to Preparedness
Week
2 of 52: Hardware List
Holy Saturday
March for Jesus Christ April 19, 2014
6. Closing - Round the Table
Individual Prayers
Upcoming Events:
13 Jan 2014 –
0700 - Push Back with Prayer
20 Jan 2014 –
0700 - Push Back with Prayer
27 Jan 2014 –
0700 - Push Back with Prayer
3 Feb 2014 –
0700 - Push Back with Prayer
10 Feb 2014 –
0700 – Push Back with Prayer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)